How late is too late? Publications Steamship Mutual Published: May 21, 2018 Contact author Download article pdf Image The question of whether a Notice of Abandonment (“NOA”) given 5 months after the casualty meant that Owners had lost the right to abandon the vessel and claim indemnity for a constructive total loss (“CTL”) was recently considered by the Court of Appeal, on appeal from the 2016 High Court case The MV Renos [2016] EWHC 1580 (Comm). The Court was further asked to consider whether Owners were entitled to take into account costs incurred prior to the NOA towards the CTL calculation.   Facts In August 2012, a fire broke out in the engine room of the “ Renos ” while she was on a laden voyage in the Red Sea. The same day Owners appointed Salvors under a Lloyds Open Form 2011 (“LOF”) and the SCOPIC clause was invoked. The vessel was insured for US$12,000,000 on a hull policy subject to ITC – Hulls 1/10/83 and US$3,000,000 under an increased value policy. It was agreed that the fire was an insured peril. It was common ground that the vessel was likely to be a CTL as the damage repair costs were estimated to be US$8 million or more. In the weeks and months that ensued, Owners and Insurers carried out multiple investigations aimed at determining the extent of damage and cost of repairs. The parties held several inconclusive discussions as to whether and where the vessel should be repaired and what such repairs should entail. By the end of January 2013, the parties had failed to reach an agreement as to whether Owners were entitled to be indemnified for a CTL. Faced with an impasse, Owners finally tendered their NOA on 1 February 2013, to which Insurers reacted with a rejection, on the grounds that it had been given too late. Insurers sought to defend the claim, inter alia , on the grounds that the vessel was not a CTL, that Owners failed to serve a NOA in a timely manner and that certain expenses should be excluded from the CTL calculation. At fi